Traditional Knowledge - FUBAR

8/14/2019 Traditional Knowledge - FUBAR

1/94

WIPO EWIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/12ORIGINAL: EnglishDATE: October 1, 2009WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION

GENEVA

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ONINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND GENETIC RESOURCES,

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE

Fourteenth SessionGeneva, June 29 to July 3, 2009

REPORT

Document prepared by the Secretariat


2/94

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/12page 2

INTRODUCTION

1. Convened by the Director General of WIPO, the Intergovernmental Committee onIntellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (the

Committee) held its fourteenth session in Geneva, from June 29 to July 3, 2009.2. The following States were represented: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria,Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon,Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cte dIvoire, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia,Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Holy See,Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica,Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico,Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,

Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,

Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore,Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia,Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia andZimbabwe (99). The European Community was also represented as a member of theCommittee.

3. The following intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) took part as observers:African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), CommonWealth Secretariat (COMSEC), Council of Europe (CE), European Commission (EC); Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), European Patent Office (EPO),Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), International Union for the Protection of New

Varieties of Plants (UPOV), South Center, United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (12).

4. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) tookpart as observers: 3D > Trade - Human Rights - Equitable Economy (3D); Assembly ofArmenians of Western Armenia; Assembly of First Nations (AFN); Berne Declaration;Centre for Documentation, Research and Information of Indigenous Peoples (doCip); Centrefor International Environmental Law (CIEL); Centre for International Intellectual PropertyStudies (CEIPI); Center for Peace Building and Poverty Reduction among IndigenousAfricanPeoples (CEPPER); Civil Society Coalition (CSC); Comisin Jurdica para el

Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos (CAPAJ); Conseil national pour lapromotion de la musique traditionnelle du Congo (CNPMTC); Coordination of AfricanHuman Rights NGOs (CONGAF); Creators Rights Alliance (CRA); CropLife International;Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL.net); Ethio-Africa Diaspora Union MillenniumCouncil; Foundation for Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea (FRSIPC);Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE); Indian Council of South America(CISA); Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru; International Association for the Advancementof Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP); Indigenous Fisher Peoples

Network (IFP); Indigenous Peoples (Bethechilokono) of Saint Lucia Governing Council(BCG); Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB); International Association forthe Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI); International Centre for Trade and

Sustainable Development (ICTSD); International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); InternationalCommission for the Rights of Aboriginal People (ICRA); International Committee for theIndians of the Americas (INCOMINDIOS); International Federation of Library Associations


3/94


and Institutions (IFLA); International Federation of Musicians (FIM); InternationalFederation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA); International IndianTreaty Council (IITC); International Society for Ethnology and Folklore (SIEF);International Publishers Association (IPA); International Trademark Association (INTA);Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC); IQ Sensato; Kanuri Development Association;

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI); Lauravetlan Information and Education Networkof Indigenous Peoples (LIENIP); Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES);Mbororo Social Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA); Mtis National Council(MNC); Music in Common; Nigeria Natural Medicine Development Agency (NNMDA);Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute (QMIPRI); Research Group on CultureProperty (RGCP); Rromani Baxt; Sudanese Association for Archiving Knowledge(SUDAAK); Third World Network (TWN); World Conservation Union (IUCN); TulalipTribes of Washington Governmental Affairs Department; West Africa Coalition forIndigenous Peoples Rights (WACIPR); World Trade Institute (54).

5. A list of participants is annexed to this report.

6. Document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/INF/2 Rev. provided an overview of the workingdocuments distributed for the fourteenth session.

7. The Secretariat noted the interventions made and recorded them on tape. This reportsummarizes the discussions and provides the essence of interventions, without reflecting allthe observations made in detail or necessarily following the chronological order ofinterventions.

AGENDA ITEM 1: OPENING OF THE SESSION

8. The session was opened by Mr. Francis Gurry, the Director General of WIPO. In hisopening remarks, the Director General noted that the Committee addressed issues offundamental importance to many Member States and other participants, especiallyrepresentatives of indigenous and local communities. It also raised searching questions forthe IP system. There were, therefore, high expectations amongst many participants forconcrete outcomes. Despite a rich amount of material before the Committee, there was,however, frustration among many delegations at the lack of progress. There were, at the sametime, diverse views and aspirations among those participating in the Committee. The

previous session of the Committee had ended without agreement on future work, and,specifically, on a proposal for an intersessional process put forward by the African Group.Since then, the Chair had been conducting consultations with all the regional groups andseveral individual delegations, as reported on in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/INF/6. Consultationswith regional coordinators had also taken, convened by the Director Generals newlyappointed Chef de Cabinet, Mr. Naresh Prasad, whom the Director General introduced. Theseconsultations had been positive and been held in a constructive atmosphere. The DirectorGeneral was grateful to the Chair and all delegations for their efforts to move the work of theCommittee forward. These consultations had identified that the Agenda Item on FutureWork was likely to be the subject of much of the discussion, and in this regard the DirectorGeneral had noted the proposal by the African Group, reflected in documentWIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/8 Rev. He stated he was personally grateful to the African Group for

having taken this initiative, which would, he was sure, be carefully studied by all delegations.The mandate of the Committee came up for renewal at the WIPO General Assembly inSeptember 2009, and it was therefore expected that this session of the Committee would reach


4/94


a decision in this regard and make a recommendation to the Assembly. The Director Generalconcluded by wishing the participants much success for the session.

9. Mr. Wend Wendland of WIPO was Secretary to the fourteenth session of theCommittee.

AGENDA ITEM 2: ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Decision on agenda item 2:

10. The Chair submitted the revised draft agenda circulated asWIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/1 Prov. 2 for adoption. On the basis of a proposal made by the AfricanGroup, the draft agenda was amended so that item 10 of the agenda (Future Work) wouldappear after item 6 (Participation of Indigenous and Local Communities) and before item 7(Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore). The Future Work item would, therefore,

appear on the agenda as item 7 and the remaining items would be renumbered accordingly.The agenda was adopted, subject to this modification, and reissued as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/1.

AGENDA ITEM 3:ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE THIRTEENTH SESSION

Decision on agenda Item 3:

11. The Chair submitted, and the Committee adopted, with two corrections, the report of itsThirteenth Session (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/11 Prov. 2), which will be issued in final form as

document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/11.

AGENDA ITEM 4:ACCREDITATION OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS

Decision on agenda item 4:

12. The Committee unanimously approved accreditation of all the organizations listed in theAnnex to document WIPO/GR, TKF/IC/14/2 as ad hoc observers, namely: Elders Council ofthe Shor People; Centre daccompagnement des autochtones pygmes et minoritairesvulnrables (CAMV); Olaji Lo Larusa Integrated Program for Pastoralists Development(OLIPAD); Nepal Indigenous Nationalities Preservation Association (NINPA); Groupe de

Recherche sur les Savoirs (GRS); Afrikan Virtual Resource (NALANE); Samburu Womenfor Education and Environmental Development Organization (SWEEDO); The Nama FirstIndigenous Peoples Forum in Namibia (NIPFIN); Indigenous Laikipiak Maasai IntegratedYouth Organization (ILAMAIYO FOUNDATION); Consejo de Caciques de la Nacin

Mbya Guaran; Confederacin de Nacionalidades Indgenas del Ecuador(CONAIE); Cadrede Concertation des Associations des Veuves du Burundi (CCAVB); CommunityDevelopment and Empowerment Association (CEDA); and, Centrale Sanitaire Suisse

Romande(CSSR).


5/94


AGENDA ITEM 5: OPENING STATEMENTS

13. The Delegation of Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, thanked the Chair for theinformal consultations carried out since the previous session of the Committee with a view to

exploring means likely to allow its work to continue and achieve concrete results. TheDelegation also thanked the Director General as well as his colleagues for their efforts infacilitating discussions. The Delegation warmly welcomed the facilities for participating inthe meetings of the Committee provided by means of the Voluntary Fund and urged MemberStates to pay their contributions to the Fund. The Delegation stated that at the time of therenewal of the Committees mandate in 2007 a large number of delegations had consideredthat new departure as an opportunity to refocus their work and to manage not only torecognize the international dimension of genetic resources, traditional knowledge andfolklore, without prejudice to the work carried out in other bodies, but also to reach aconsensus on achieving appropriate protection. The Delegation of Senegal added that theother delegations were convinced that the background work already carried out as well as

increased participation and dialogue would lead to tangible results. The Delegation had statedthat the comparison between those expectations and the results obtained were an indication ofthe disappointment of the African Group as regards the outcome of the work of theCommittee on the eve of the expiration of its mandate in September 2009. The Delegationstated that the African Group remained hopeful and that its interest in the issues underdiscussion remained high. The Delegation of Senegal believed that the Committee could notrenew the same terms of reference for its mandate which had led to stalemate. TheDelegation underscored the holistic approach which was to lead to the effective protection ofgenetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and noted theAfrican Group had made proposals, inter alia, on the renewal of the mandate of theCommittee along with a work program with a timetable for, in particular, intersession

meetings as a means of accelerating the work of the Committee. The Delegation noted thatthe proposal of the Group referred to the negotiations based on texts, including documentsWIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5, submitted to the Committee under thedocument code WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/9. The Delegation reaffirmed that only the adoption ofa legally binding international instrument could guarantee the effective protection of folkloreand traditional knowledge as well as genetic resources of indigenous and local communitiesof Member States. It expressed the wish that its proposals would, in the context of futurework of the Committee, serve to correct the imbalance inherent in intellectual property at theinternational level with on the one hand individual property well protected by various rights(patents, copyright, related rights, ...) and on the other community-based assets at the mercyof piracy, illicit use, misappropriations or other prejudicial actions. The Delegation expressedthe wish that the Committee could put a stop to that situation.

14. The Delegation of Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Asian Group, thanked the Chair forhaving held informal consultations prior to the Committees meeting. It hoped that theCommittee would revitalize its mandate towards a tangible result, including the possibledevelopment of an international instrument for the protection of GR, TK and TCEs. TheGroup expressed its ongoing concern for the misappropriation of TCEs, TK and GRs. Thefundamental objective of the Committees work was the protection and preservation ofindigenous peoples knowledge and resources. The sharing of benefits from GR, TK andTCEs should also be a guiding objective, and it was time for the Committee to have a more

focused work program. The Group stressed the need for issuance of documents in all ofWIPOs official languages. Concrete progress in the Committee was essential for the largerstrategic goals of WIPO. Further, the Delegation recalled that the Director General had on


6/94


many occasions stressed the need for a concrete outcome with respect to the protection of TKand TCEs.

15. The Delegation of Pakistan aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation ofSri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group. The Delegation appreciated the Director Generals

personal interest in the issues before the Committee. The Delegation welcomed the AfricanGroup proposal for the renewal of the Committees mandate. The Committee showed thatintergovernmental negotiations could span many years and still be fruitless. Accordingly, theDelegation supported the renewal of the mandate with specific provisions including text basednegotiations and a time-frame for an outcome. If a new mandate did not take a concreteapproach, the Committee would only spend more time, energy, and resources for few

practical benefits. Therefore, the Delegation was opposed to the renewal of a mandate similarto ones in years past. The mandate should include a legally binding international instrumentfor the protection of GR, TK and TCEs against misappropriation. Issues such as benefit -sharing and prior informed consent should form the heart of discussions. For WIPO to remainrelevant in international IP debates on GR, TK and TCEs, it must address such issues.

16. The Delegation of Serbia, speaking on behalf of the Group of Central European and theBaltic States, understood that IP rights did not provide adequate international protection forGR, TK and TCEs and hoped to address the need for future protection in the course of theCommittees session.

17. The Delegation of Germany, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that the documentsprovided for the session adequately reflected the thoughts and expertise of the Committeesparticipants and observers. TK and TCEs had taken on new economic and culturalsignificance within the globalized information society. GRs had assumed increasingeconomic, scientific, and commercial value to a wide range of stakeholders with the

emergence of modern biotechnologies. The conservation, sustainable utilization, and benefitsharing were already being addressed within a range of different policy areas and forums,including food and agriculture, biological diversity, biotechnology, public health, andeconomic development. The Delegation said that the contribution of TK and GRs to tacklingglobal challenges would be reflected in discussions during the WIPO Conference onIntellectual Property and Public Policy, which would take place in July 2009. The Committeehad a leadership role to play in addressing the IP aspects of the protection, promotion, and

preservation of TK, TCEs, and GRs. In particular, Group B hoped for progress in identifyingthe policy objectives and principles for protection of TK and TCEs. It wanted to deepen itsunderstanding of the issues related to TK and TCEs, and of the possible gaps in TK and TCE

protection. The Delegation pointed out that the gap analyses, prepared by the Secretariat forthe Committees last session, showed that possible gaps in protection of TK and TCEs existon the national and on the international level. It agreed with other Delegations that theCommittee could assist in bridging gaps in protection by producing tangible outcomes, suchas guidelines and recommendations. Group B also hoped that the Committee would enhanceits work on GRs. Concerning the international dimension of protection, it said that it waslooking forward to discussions on the IP aspects of GR, TK and TCEs. The Committeeshould focus its discussion on the IP aspects, as a common understanding of these aspectswould substantially advance the international dimension of the Committees work.

18. The Delegation of Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Community and

its 27 Member States, reaffirmed its commitment to the work of the Committee and its hopeto explore solutions for the protection of GRs, TK and TCEs. The European Community andits Member States welcomed the participation of accredited indigenous and local


7/94


communities, as they were integral to finding a holistic solution for the protection of GR, TKand TCEs. The Delegation also expressed its appreciation for WIPOs implementation of theVoluntary Fund. The European Community and its Member States were of the opinion that itwas time for the Committee to take further steps towards substantive progress based on thework it had done so far, namely on the list of issues and draft gap analyses. The Delegation

stated that the draft gap analysis on TCEs showed that, for a large number of indigenouscommunities concerns, legal instruments already existed. The gap analysis also made clearthat many of the problems regarding TCEs did not concern issues of copyright, but rather,were related to secrecy, unfair competition, and the safeguarding and promotion of intangiblecultural heritage. To address concerns regarding TCEs, proper solutions could only be foundcloser to the source, on national and regional levels. The European Community and itsMember States had a preference for the development of international sui generis models, orother non-binding options, to provide legal protection for TK. The final decision on

protection of TK should be left to respective States. Nevertheless, extended and active debateon precise definitions and functioning of TK was desired. The Delegation again expressed itshope for more work in the area of GRs. The Delegation recalled the European Communitys

proposal for the disclosure of origin of GRs and associated TK in patent applications, andwished to assure Member States that it would continue to actively and constructivelyparticipate in forthcoming discussions.

19. The Delegation of Thailand aligned itself with the statement made by Sri Lanka onbehalf of the Asian Group. IP needed to be responsive to the needs of all WIPO MemberStates, in particular to developing countries. GRs, TK and TCEs protection should be

promoted to help developing countries fully utilize IP for development, and to improve thecurrent IP system for the benefit of all countries. The Delegation was disappointed that, inspite of intense negotiations in the past, no concrete progress had occurred. In this respect,the Delegation expressed its support for the African Groups proposal as the basis for the

Committees future work. It saw merit in renewing the mandate which contained a clearlydefined work program and timeframe to help guide, over the next two years, the Committeeswork towards concrete outcomes. It was also supportive of having intersessional workinggroups for key issues such as definitions and objects of protection, as well as sui generisoptions. Text based negotiations would help accelerate the work. The Delegation expressedits support for the development of an international legally binding instrument, but it also saidthat it was open to achieving tangible results along the way to a binding instrument. Thus, theDelegation of Thailand would consider a mandate that provided for only a normativeinternational instrument or a high-level political declaration. Binding and non-bindinginstruments need not be mutually exclusive. All options should be viewed as building blocksfor the common goal of effective international protection. In that respect, the Delegationreiterated the crucial need for Member States to further strengthen the protection at thenational level. It called on the WIPO Secretariat to vigorously provide Member States withtechnical assistance and capacity building, to better enable effective national protection.

20. The Delegation of Republic of Korea recalled that it had always been an activeparticipant in the Committees discussions. The Delegation informed that it had taken stepsfor the domestic protection of GRs, TK and TCEs, through, for example, the establishment ofa Korean Traditional Knowledge database and website, in which information collected onKorean GRs, TK and TCEs had been published. Despite this progress, however, theDelegation admitted to lingering confusion on several of the most fundamental issues in

international GRs, TK and TCEs protection. Without clarification on such matters, it wouldbe difficult to agree on text based discussions. First, the Delegation was concerned by thelack of a clear distinction between GRs, TK and TCEs and the existing IP system. Without


8/94


such a distinction, additional protection for GRs, TK and TCES could cause legal disputes.Second, it noted the enormous negative impact of broad protection for GRs, TK and TCEs.The protection of GRs, TK and TCEs could cause information in the public domain to

become the subject of proprietary ownership, reducing resources for innovative and creativeactivity. The Delegation gave two examples, the first about wooden sculptures in Africa

which had been made in China. The Delegation asked the Committee if China had anobligation to pay indigenous African communities for the production of those sculptures.Second, the Delegation drew attention to the famous Korean food Kimchi. If a foreigncompany tried to get a patent on the recipe of Kimchi, the Government of the Republic ofKorea would likely try to invalidate that patent. However, the Delegation then wonderedwhether the government had proprietary rights on Kimchi. Further, would the Republic ofKorea have the right to authorize foreign companies production of Kimchi. If such were thecase, the Delegation continued, consumers would have to pay for pizza and spaghetti fromItaly, sushi from Japan, and curry from India. Rather than privatizing GRs, TK and TCEs,States should rather protect them. For instance, the Delegation suggested use of certificates oforiginality, or standardization of the quality of GR, TK and TCEs products. Member States

were only looking at the benefits of the propertization of their own GRs, TK and TCEs,without thinking of the reciprocal obligation of paying for the use of other countries GRs, TKand TCEs. Despite these concerns, the Delegation welcomed discussions to clarify the issuesand find possible solutions.

21. The Delegation of Zimbabwe welcomed the organizations representing indigenouscommunities. Indigenous communities remained vulnerable to the piracy of their rich GRs,TK and TCEs. The Delegation aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation ofSenegal on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation expressed its concern with themanner in which the last Committee session had been held and expressed hope that thissession would be run differently. It was regrettable that nine years had passed without any

headway in the Committee. The importance of the Committee to the African continent couldnot be over-emphasized. It was with much regret, therefore, that the Delegation continued towitness a lack of political will by its negotiating partners. The African Group had made a

proposal, seeking to renew the mandate to allow the Committee to undertake text-basednegotiations in the 2010-2011 biennium. The Delegation believed that a clearly defined work

program and timeframe, including the holding of intersessional work sessions, as proposed bythe African Group, was a most favorable proposal. Given the amount of work that had beendone by the Committee in previous sessions, it was only logical that the focus should turn tofuture work and the renewal of its mandate. GRs, TK and TCEs protection would strengthenthe ideals of democracy and increase business opportunities for every Member State. EveryState stood to benefit from GRs, TK and TCEs protection. It was unfortunate that the sameMember States that justified international instruments in other committees were opposed tothe same in this Committee. The Delegation appealed to the Director General to considerraising these issues at the highest political levels.

22. The Delegation of Egypt associated itself with the statement made by the Delegation ofSenegal on behalf of the African Group. While it thanked the Secretariat for thedocumentation, it hoped that WIPO would translate the documents into Arabic in the future.The Delegation expressed its deep appreciation to the Director General for his personalcommitment to the work of the Committee. It was hoped that the Committee would pursue aqualitatively different stride in renewing its mandate. After nine years of work, there was still

no protection at the international level. In fact, the Committee was a talk shop, wherepositions were consistently restated without any evolution. The African Groups proposal


9/94


was premised on the need for an internationally binding legal instrument or instruments. Inorder to make progress, the immediate commencement of text-based negotiations was needed.

23. The Delegation of Morocco thanked the Chair for its efforts in organizing the informalconsultations prior to the session. It also thanked the Director General for his interest in the

work of the Committee as well as the Secretariat for its efforts, in particular, in preparing thedocumentation. The Delegation supported the statement by Senegal made on behalf of theAfrican Group. The Delegation of Morocco stated that it had made considerable efforts at thenational level to protect genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. It noted thatany economic benefit gained, by either exploiting genetic resources, or traditional knowledgeand folklore, was to be shared equally between the user and the rights holders. TheDelegation supported the establishment of binding international standards which would be theoutcome of the work of the Committee. It expressed the wish that the spirit of harmony andconsensus which gave rise to the adoption of the WIPO Action Plan for Development shouldset the tone for the Committees discussions. The Delegation was confident of the capacity ofits Members to rise to the challenge, so that its work could lead to a consensual and balanced

agreement that would put an end to the misappropriation of genetic resources, traditionalknowledge and folklore. Finally, the Delegation was delighted at the sound operation of theVoluntary Fund dedicated to the participation of local and indigenous communities and calledon the generosity of Member States to contribute to the financing of the Fund.

24. The Delegation of Colombia indicated that Article 3 of Andean Community Decision486 stated that Member Countries of the Andean Community should guarantee, in awardingindustrial property rights, respect for the biological and genetic heritage, on the same footingas the TK of indigenous, Afro-American or local communities. It declared that Colombia hada duty to carry out that mandate and that it considered it appropriate to adopt legally bindinginternational instruments, including the sui generis protection mechanisms for TK and TCEs

being considered, as long as the instrument included consulting indigenous, Afro-American orlocal communities on their TK and developments in the negotiations on TK associated withGR of the CBD with a view to avoiding duplicating efforts in those matters. It indicated thatthe work of the Committee had made headway, highlighting that preventive protection of GRwas required and adopting measures that avoided granting patents on GRs which did not meetthe requirements of novelty or inventive step. It stated that WIPO, in order to meet itscommitments, had set an objective to improve the search engines and classification systemsfor examiners who evaluated patent applications containing claims to genetic resources. Also,the Committee had studied IP aspects of access to GR and equitable benefit-sharingarrangements which came from using them. As regards TK, it highlighted in the work of theCommittee the importance given to the work involved in the preservation, protection andeffective use in IP systems. Although on that issue there were varied, diverse and complexaspects under consideration, the focus remained on the preventive protection of TK, adoptingmeasures that were likely to ensure that the industrial property rights were not awarded tothose who were not the confirmed holders of such rights. It noted that some countries weredeveloping databases on TK which could be used as evidence of the state of the art to annulthe claim to a patent for particular traditional knowledge. It added that there was also

promotion of the protection of TK by means of establishing positive rights (positiveprotection), which enabled their holders to protect and develop them. In some countries suigeneris legislation had been drafted to deal with the positive protection of TK concretely. Itdeclared that the work of the Committee deserved recognition and support, and it would

continue to back it. It believed that enough elements were already on the table to come upwith a binding international instrument which would govern TK and folklore, as long as theinstrument included consulting indigenous, Afro-American or local communities on their TK


10/94


and took into consideration developments in the negotiations on TK associated with geneticresources of the CBD with a view to avoiding a duplication of efforts in those matters.

25. The Delegation of Indonesia aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation ofSri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group. It expressed its hope for substantive progress on the

Committees issues. Inventions, designs, and trademarks had been duly protected by IP rightsfor a long time. On the other hand, GRs, TK and TCEs, which in most cases were inventedand had passed through many generations, had not received the same levels of protection.Preservation and safeguarding of GRs, TK and TCEs was vital to the existence of traditionalcommunities, particularly in developing countries, but also to the development and prosperityof countries as a whole. It was regretted that GRs, TK and TCEs had not received substantive

protection. WIPO should redouble its effort to expedite the development of an internationallegally binding instrument for the protection of GRs, TK and TCEs. The Committee hadabundant substantive tools to establish an international legally binding instrument. TheCommittee needed the firm political will to approve a mandate referring to a bindinginternational instrument. In this regard, the Delegation strongly supported the African

Groups proposal. The Delegation noted it had taken steps to prepare its domestic legalinfrastructure for GRs, TK and TCEs protection. It recalled the Asian-African Conference,and the Bandung Declaration, which had helped to compel the strengthening of Indonesiasdomestic GRs, TK and TCEs protection. Indonesia and South Africa were in the process offinalizing bilateral cooperation for the promotion and protection of each others TK andTCEs. The Delegation stated that it wished to pursue similar bilateral arrangements withother countries. The Delegation reaffirmed its commitment to the mandate of the Committeeand its pragmatic renewal. It hoped to begin text-based negotiations for an internationallegally binding instrument as soon as possible.

26. The Delegation of Brazil commended the Chair for the consultations he had carried out

in since the previous session. The Delegation also thanked the Director General for hiscontinued engagement with the Committee, and the Secretariat for its overall support of thesession. The Committee had come to a point where substantial progress was immediatelyneeded. The Committee should produce a workable and result-oriented mandate. TheAfrican Group proposal was both pragmatic and result-oriented, but any mandate shouldrecognize the different levels of maturity between TK, TCEs and GRs. TK and TCEs enjoyeda higher level of progress relative to GRs. The Delegation hoped that discussions on GRswould be pursued in tandem with ongoing work in the WTO and the CBD. The Committeeshould avoid duplicating others work. The Delegation also noted that both WIPO treatiesand TRIPS readily required developing countries to protect trademarks, patents, andtechnology, which developed countries largely produced. Yet cultural products, of whichdeveloping countries monopolized production, remained unprotected. The Delegation saidthat an international legally-binding agreement would increase the legitimacy of the IP systemand widen developing countries participation by enabling them to protect and benefit fromthe sole intangible assets held by them.

27. The Delegation of South Africa expressed its full support for the statement made by theDelegation of Senegal on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation pointed out that, sinceits 8th session, the Committee had fallen far short on delivering on its mandate to accelerateits work without excluding any outcome. The absence of progress during the 13th sessionindicated of a lack of political will by some Members, which was hampering WIPOs

progress. The Delegation wished to highlight several points critical to the success of theCommittee. First, concerning discussions for the 14th session, the Committee need onlyfocus on the outcome of its future work, in particular its mandate. Substantive debate on


11/94


GRs, TK and TCEs had been exhaustive. The only aspect remaining was for the Committeeto commence text based negotiations aimed at the conclusion of an internationally legally

binding instrument. Second, the substantive texts that the African Group proposed constitutethe basis of text based negotiations were documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4,WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8(A). The Delegation wished to inform the

Committee that, through its membership in the African Group, it had been providingsubstantive comments to texts, which the Committee had not taken into consideration or evenacknowledged in discussions since its 10th session. These comments, it said, were containedin the African Groups document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/9. It was clear that the currentmandate no longer sufficed to ensure political will to accelerate the Committees work. TheDelegation expressed its full support for the African Groups proposal, as it contained all ofthe elements necessary for an effective mandate: The adoption of a clear work program andclear timeline leading towards a Diplomatic Conference; a clear commitment for text basednegotiations for an internationally legally binding instrument(s) which would commence atthe next session of the Committee based on the legal texts provided, namely,WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/118(A); and, the

establishment of intersessional work with the aim of accelerating the work to discuss pertinentissues of definitions, beneficiaries, prior informed consent, moral rights and sui generisoptions.

28. The Delegation of Zambia reaffirmed the importance of protecting its citizensintellectual expressions of cultural identity and heritage, as both formed a vital source ofeconomic development and social well being. The Delegation of Zambia was richly endowedwith GRs, TK and TCEs. The Delegation informed the Committee of its national IP policy,awaiting Cabinet approval, which advocated forinter alia the enactment of domesticlegislation providing forsui generis protection. The law provided for protection and benefitsharing as well as for longer terms of protection. Despite its belief that national protection

was essential, the Delegation stressed that misappropriation was a complex, transnationalproblem. The need for a legally binding instrument was indispensable. Continued failure toachieve concrete results risked rendering the Committee irredeemable. The options for andagainst a legally binding agreement had been adequately discussed. The Delegation pointedto working documents which stated that the issues had been extensively reviewed. TheDelegation asked how long the Committee would continue its extensive reviews. It pleadedthat there was no need to again consider the gap analyses. As a result of the Committeesinertia, countries were resorting to other initiatives, such as the instrument on TK and TCEs

being developed by ARIPO. The Delegation was ready for constructive engagement.

29. The Delegation of Ghana aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation ofSenegal on behalf of the African Group. The Delegation intended to engage in constructivedialogue to achieve the objectives for which the Committee had been established. Ghana hada rich culture, well endowed with GRs, TK and TCEs. The Delegation recounted its efforts tolook for ways to protect its peoples rich cultural heritage. In that regard, it was regrettablethat after 13 sessions, the Committee had not been able to move forward. The Delegation

believed that it was time to concretize matters by setting specific targets and timeframes, andfocusing on securing an international legally binding instrument. The Delegation endorsedthe African Proposal, and urged all delegations to endeavor to cooperate in a transparent andflexible manner with a view to attaining consensus. TK and TCEs were particular to groupsof people, and it stood to reason that those groups would seek to protect their rights from

misuse, misappropriation, and exploitation. The Delegation welcomed ARIPOs draftinstrument on TK and TCEs to be adopted by ARIPO Member States in November 2009.


12/94


The Delegation remained open to all proposals geared towards fulfillment of the Committeesmandate.

30. The Delegation of the Philippines expressed its hope that the Committee would be ableto find appropriate solutions to issues pending before the Committee in its 14th session. The

Delegation noted the high priority attached to upholding the rights and welfare ofdisadvantaged and vulnerable groups, notably indigenous peoples. It supported rights-basedapproaches to address its concerns in a comprehensive, positive, and practical way. GRs, TKand TCEs posed cross-cutting concerns, and were a human rights issue, a trade issue, an IPissue, and a development issue. The Delegation had undertaken progressive refinement of itslaws, policies, and practices, towards striking a balance between interests of rights-holdersand the public welfare. The overarching goal of its domestic legislation was to enhance themantle of protection for vulnerable sectors and groups, particularly its indigenous culturalcommunities. The Delegation therefore welcomed the opportunity to constructively engagewith other Member States, not only to promote and protect the fundamental rights ofindigenous peoples, but also to objectively assess how IP rights could serve as a vehicle to

achieve sustainable development. The Delegation hoped that its categorical support for thestrengthening of the mandate was a clear indication of the seriousness with which it viewedGRs, TK and TCEs protection on a global scale. The Delegation aimed to establish aninternational legal regime that provided remedial measures for the misappropriation of GRs,TK and TCEs. Intense debates had occurred in other IGOs, notably in the WTO, CBD andFAO. Despite these other forums, WIPO, as a specialized UN agency in the field of IP rights,had a key role to play in bridging national, regional, and international standards and strategies.

31. The Delegation of Guatemala thanked the Secretariat for preparing the documents forthe meeting and the Chair for the information note on the consultations held since thethirteenth session of the Committee. It stated that Guatemala was a country with a majority

population of indigenous and traditional communities. To meet the needs and interests of itscommunities, it believed it was essential, by means of international legal instruments, toachieve substantive progress in the issues dealt with by the Committee to date. It warmlywelcomed the proposal submitted by the African Group, for contributing concrete answers forthe Committee. It thanked WIPO for the opportunity to participate in the Creative HeritageProject, which it hoped would progress positively in Guatemala. It repeated its willingness towork with the Chair to achieve concrete and positive results during the current session of theCommittee.

32. The Delegation of Bolivia pointed out that its country had vast biological wealth, anatural environment where more than 36 indigenous peoples with age-old cultures which hadadapted to the local prevailing environmental conditions in their territories and during that

process they had developed traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, elements whichwere closely linked to the use and conservation of biological resources. It maintained that

preserving and maintaining such knowledge and the protection ofsui generis collective rightsof indigenous and native peoples were a priority and very important, even more so now thatthere was an Indigenous President, thanks to whom such knowledge was protected and thecollective rights of indigenous peoples was recognized in the current State PoliticalConstitution. It stated that traditional knowledge, learning, innovations and practices ofindigenous peoples were fundamental to managing the conservation and use of biodiversity,as an integral part of the identity and territory of such peoples. It believed that the sui generis

protection of collective rights with respect for the territorial structures, organization andinternal standards of indigenous peoples was necessary and of vital importance. It pointed outthat the collective rights of indigenous peoples in their TK should be recognized at the


13/94


international level. It indicated that indigenous peoples should manage and administer TKregistries themselves and along with national authorities they should develop a sui generissystem of protection of GR, TK and ancestral knowledge in such as way as to share skills. Itstated that the participation of indigenous peoples in the benefits derived from using currentgenetic resources in their territories and the benefits derived from using TK as holders, was a

right. It maintained that although indigenous participation in the discussions of theCommittee was sought, participation of those directly involved had not been sufficient fortheir concerns to be taken into account, as established in the latest progress made in themultilateral legal system such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples adopted in September 2007. Future work should put more emphasis on achievinggreater involvement of indigenous peoples. The Delegation indicated that it shared thefrustration of the majority of developing Member States, at not seeing sufficient progress insuch matters in their countries. It concluded that if no decisive step was taken at the currentsession, it could not see the use of following the discussions in their previous format. Itagreed with the proposal of the African Group to establish options for the collectivesui generisprotection of GR, TK and ancestral knowledge of their indigenous peoples.

33. The Delegation of China believed that the documents provided by the Secretariat madeclear that the Committee had explored many possibilities for the protection of GRs, TK andTCEs. After more than a dozen meetings, the Committee had not yet come up with a positiveconclusion and it was hoped that all the efforts had not gone in vain. The Delegationcontinued to expect positive and constructive results from the 14th session.

34. The Delegation of Algeria endorsed the statement by Senegal made on behalf of theAfrican Group and thanked the Secretariat for preparing the documents. The Delegationstated that the three questions relating to folklore, traditional knowledge and genetic resourcesshould be dealt with using a holistic approach, with a view to concluding a legally binding

international instrument. The Delegation emphasized that since its creation in 2000, theCommittee had transformed itself into an international forum for the exchange of views,without, however, focusing on its mandate, i.e. producing tangible results and managing toconclude one or more legal instruments to combat all forms of misappropriation of folklore,traditional knowledge and genetic resources. The Delegation of Algeria urged Member Statesto move to a more specific level of commitment in the Committees future deliberations. TheDelegation stated that the progress achieved in that regard was the result of the political willof the stakeholders and that they had gone beyond the stage of a general discussion. It invitedMember States to look favorably on the proposal of the African Group regarding the renewalof the Committees mandate for 2010/2011, according to a prescribed program of work andschedule. It said that it was determined to make a positive contribution to the negotiating

process under way.

35. The Delegation of El Salvador referred to some of the progress made in its country onthe subject of IP of TCEs, TK and GR. It stated that, since the recent change in government,there were new and better prospects for developing such subjects, which had led to the

proposal to ratify the Charter on Indigenous Rights as an ideal ethical and moral platform todevelop whatever initiative on native peoples, their expressions, knowledge and resources. Itindicated that the discussion on such subjects was underway, with a view to placing them inthe public domain especially for the custodians of and those passing on TK and TCEs, as wellas researchers and specialists in IP law. A chat/discussion program had been organized, in

which the expressions and knowledge of indigenous communities had been promoted andtheir relations with indigenous communities, and the change that researchers and other agentsshould assume to respect such rights. It stated that the promotion of such expressions and


14/94


knowledge was paving the way for results and parallel products such as the positioning ofindigenous designers and craftspeople, writers and composers of El Salvador. It pointed outthat its biggest achievement was the project to revitalize the Nahua-Pipil language, as thatlanguage of Aztec origin was seriously threatened with extinction and there were onlyapproximately 200 indigenous speakers remaining in the western part of the country. It

stressed that 2009 had seen an increase in the number of schools participating in the project,which included Nahua-Pipil in their study program, thereby guaranteeing its transmission,widespread use and survival. It made available to WIPO as reference material, two videos andsome materials which reflected the work being carried out. Through an analysis of the long

path taken by the Committee and the small number of results, it supported a renewed mandatefor the Committee and applauded the initiatives taken to ensure the work done to reachobjectives which would enable an international legal instrument to be defined for protectingTCEs, TK and GRs.

36. The Delegation of Fiji pointed out that it was the only South Pacific Island staterepresented at this session and it was grateful to WIPO for its funding. The Delegation

supported the position expressed by the Asian Group. Despite many years of work, nodefinitive conclusion had been reached. Fiji supported the extension of the mandate of theCommittee and the creation of an international legal framework that would protect theaspirations of indigenous communities, their cultural heritage and their uniqueness as a

people. The indigenous people of Fiji had one language, drank kava and valued the whalestooth as the highest form of traditional wealth. There were many examples where Fijianculture had been taken away by individuals, organisations, academic institutions,

pharmaceutical companies and multinational corporations for their own benefits without anyacknowledgement or return to the communities that owned it. Fiji was a word which couldno longer be unilaterally used by Fijians for their commercial benefit, because the name wasregistered to a company in the USA. Fiji called for genuineness, understanding, sharing,

goodwill and commitment to successfully conclude the work of the Committee.

37. The Delegation of Nigeria entirely endorsed, as a framework, the statement made by theDelegation of Senegal on behalf of the African Group. It expressed appreciation to theDirector General for having shown once again that he was bound by the words he deliveredduring his election and that he was determined to give the Committee a new prospect to moveforward. The Delegation of Nigeria thought that the Committee could move forward, butafter having listened to the statements made by a number of delegations, the Committee wasin a vicious circle. Developing countries had been very clear as to where to go, even if withminor differences. The prospect to come up with ideal definitions and objectives would notfacilitate the process. Such definitions and objective would only be useful if they constituted

building blocks to help the Committee to go forward. The Delegation of Nigeria stronglysupported the idea of a legally binding instrument. On this base, Member States could agreeor not agree on specific aspects, come forward with suggestions and work on text andlanguage in order to deal with them. The Delegation was of the view that statements withouta text to work on could never reach conclusions. It recalled that only limited progress had

been made on the mandate of the Committee during its previous meetings. There was a needto reshape its meetings in terms of negotiations in order to make more progress in terms ofsubstance, including on the very controversial issues, without being stuck in working on idealdefinitions that could take years to adopt. Since its foundation, the United Nations has beendealing with certain definitions and never found conclusions. This could be true of the

Committee. The Delegation of Nigeria believed that time was ripe to change the tactics andstrategy of the Committee. It was aware that the Committee needed also to mobilize


15/94


international and political opinion. It invited the Chair to lead the Committee in order to helpthe Members to put their ideas on paper.

38. The Delegation of Botswana expressed its support for the leadership of the Chair. Itendorsed the statement that was made by the Delegation of Senegal on behalf of the African

Group. It strongly hoped that the work of the Committee, particularly during this session,would take concrete steps. It recalled that an enormous amount of time had already beenspent which should not go to waste. The main mandate of the Committee was to serve the

people and give a voice to those who could not represent themselves. Botswana would hostthe Council of Ministers Meeting of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization(ARIPO) in Gaborone in November 2009, to look at the possibility of adopting a regionalinstrument. National and regional processes could only benefit from an emerging consensuswithin the international community at large on the protection of TK, TCEs and GRs. TheDelegation remained open to the views of other delegations regarding the future work of thisCommittee and was convinced that the Member States could find common ground.

39. The Delegation of Ecuador thanked the Chair for its work and for the informalconsultations, as well as for the preparation of document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/6. Similarly,it thanked the Director General for his constructive participation in the discussions. Itindicated that, at the national level, Ecuador promoted the right to recover, promote and

protect collective knowledge; its sciences, technologies and ancestral knowledge, GR withinbiological diversity and agrobiodiversity; its medicines and traditional medical practices,including the right to recover, promote and protect ritual and sacred places, as well as plants,animals and minerals and ecosystems within its territory. The Delegation maintained that itwas convinced of the international need to maintain, protect and develop TK and TCEs. Itindicated that it viewed with much interest and satisfaction the proposal of the African Groupon the mandate of the Committee, given that it considered initiatives such as the one

contained in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/8 as constructive and helpful in defining thework of the Committee. It stressed that it had always been interested in working towards alegally binding international instrument, sui generis in nature, which protected TK and TCEs,and welcomed the African proposal and offered its collaboration in achieving concrete results.It supported renewing the mandate of the Committee, given its major importance, as thedocuments already contained worthy ideas, some of which had been implemented internally

by its country.

40. The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran said that the Committee rested on threepillars: the Secretariat, political will and chairmanship. It associated itself with the statementmade by the Delegation of Sri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group. After thirteen sessions ofthe Committee, the international community now recognized that international protection ofTK, GR and TCEs was a fundamental issue for developing countries and LDCs in the contextof defining overall IP policies. The Committee has reached a good understanding of theissues and raised the awareness at the national, regional and international levels. TheCommittee should move from a general conceptual stage to a text-based and document stagein a holistic approach. Most Member States were seeking three objectives: the recognition ofthe GRs, TK and TCE rights holders, the protection of such rights and the establishment of alegally binding benefit sharing mechanism. The Committee should focus on the internationaldimension of protection of TK, GR and TCEs. The Delegation supported the proposal made

by the African Group, and added that this proposal could be improved and enriched during the

present session. It was also supportive of the renewal of the mandate of the Committee by thenext General Assembly.


16/94


41. The Delegation of Cameroon unreservedly supported the proposals made by theDelegation of Senegal on behalf of African countries. The Delegation said that it supportedthe renewal of the Committees mandate for 2010/2011, in order to explore new ways toemerge from the crisis, in particular by redefining new terms of reference and using a new

procedure so that a binding international protection instrument could be put in place, along

with the national instruments which by themselves would not suffice.42. The Delegation of India thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the useful and timelyinformal consultations held prior to the session of the Committee. Member States were awarethat in the last nine years the Committee had produced more than fifteen documents andextensively reviewed legal and policy options for the protection of TK and TCEs based oncomprehensive analyses of international, regional and national experiences, legalmechanisms, common elements of protection, case studies, surveys of the international policyand legal environment, as well as key principles and objectives of protection, that hadreceived support in the Committee's earlier sessions. However, there had been no tangible

progress on evolving effective modalities for international protection. The Delegation

reported that as the Committee continued to deliberate and discuss these issues, in the absenceof any internationally binding legal instrument of protection, more than two thousands casesof misappropriation were regrettably taking place every year, in Indian Traditional MedicinalKnowledge, alone. If one were to consider the total number of misappropriations throughwrongful international patents since this Committee had been set up, the figure would be astaggering one, in the range of several thousands. This was not just a statistic, since itrepresented a huge economic, cultural, developmental and emotive loss for severalmarginalized communities and right holders from deriving the legitimate benefits from theircommon assets and heritage. The Delegation said that its country had enacted legislation thataddressed all the three core elements of the ongoing global discussion on protection:disclosure, prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing, adding that the Indian

Patents Act provided for mandatory disclosure of source and geographical origin of biologicalmaterial used in the invention and provided for revocation of the patent in the event of non-disclosure. Indias National Biodiversity Act secured equitable sharing of benefits arising outof the use of accessed biological resources, under mutually agreed terms and conditions.While the administrative framework for the above legislation was already in place, India wasfocusing on implementing these provisions. It recalled that India had undertaken a pioneeringinitiative by setting up a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library containing 200,000traditional Indian medicinal formulations spread over thirty million pages and available infive international languages (French, Japanese, German, English and Spanish). The EuropeanPatent Office has been authorized access to the database for Search and Examination purposesand a similar arrangement was expected to be operationalized very soon in respect of theUSPTO. While the Delegation of India was hopeful that this would prevent misappropriation,it continued to believe that an optimal solution to this global challenge was a legally bindinginternational instrument. The Committee had a historic opportunity to move forward on the

basis of a focused action plan, towards evolving an effective legally binding system ofinternational protection that ensured that TK, GR and TCEs become a tool for wealth creationand socio-economic development for the right-holders of these knowledge systems. Ittherefore welcomed the African Groups useful suggestion for beginning this session with adiscussion on the agenda item on Future Work and supported its proposal for intersessionalwork. The Delegation thanked and strongly supported the African Group for its valuable,timely proposal regarding the renewal of the mandate of the Committee. The Delegation

invited all Member States to engage positively and constructively in the deliberations.


17/94


43. The Delegation of Sudan supported the proposal of the Delegation of Senegal made onbehalf of the African Group. It underlined the importance of protecting TK and TCEs sincethey lay at the foundation of the civilization of every country. It invited WIPO to grant itssupport to the Member States in this area. Developing countries should show even greaterinterest in protecting GR, TK and TCEs. It recalled that Sudan had enacted a new law to

protect copyrights, and that civil society was actively participating in these efforts. TheDelegation said that its country would very quickly conclude a charter which reflects theagreements reached on protecting TK and TCEs.

44. The Delegation of Australia looked forward to engaging with and supporting the Chairas he steered the work of the Committee, including the renewal of its mandate and theadoption of a strong future work program that would bring to fruition the significant workalready undertaken by the Committee. The Delegation associated itself with the statementmade by the Delegation of Germany on behalf of Group B. It expressed its very stronginterest in the work of the Committee, since Australia had diverse and vibrant indigenouscultures with significant cultural heritage, which was rich in TK and TCEs and had a unique

relationship with the land. It stated that Member States had much to learn from thisrelationship, as the world grappled with the challenges of maintaining a sustainablebio-system. It added that Australia, as a mega-diverse continent, had a significant proportionof the worlds GRs, which, when combined with its mature bio-technological industry, hadenabled the country to become a net exporter of GRs. It was in the countrys interests and theinterests of its indigenous communities that the work of the Committee made progress,

particularly in relation to developing efficient, effective and transparent mechanisms toprotect these resources, and to ensuring that these resources, where appropriate, wereaccessible and used for the benefit of all communities. The benefits should also be sharedfairly and equitably, particularly without detriment to, and to the benefit of indigenouscultures and communities. The Delegation was keen to work with all Member States, to

develop a future work program that would have broad support, particularly in relation tosupporting: countries to develop effective, efficient, transparent and consistent domestic

protection regimes and the identification of practical international frameworks andmechanisms to ensure consistent and transparent treatment, internationally, of TK, TCEs andGR. It said that without broad agreement any gains the Committee would achieve were likelyto be illusionary. The proposal made by the African Group was a solid basis from which tomove the discussion forward, and the Delegation of Australia appreciated the efforts of theAfrican Group. The Delegation reiterated its strong support for the renewal of theCommittees mandate, including progressing work on the full range of issues.

45. The Delegation of Canada thanked the Secretariat for preparing the documents for thissession of the Committee, in particular documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/4 andWIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/5. Canada associated itself with the statement made by Germany on

behalf of Group B. It looked forward to engaging with the Chair, the Member States andAccredited Observers to renew the mandate of the Committee for the next biennium andcontinue its work on all three substantive items on equal footing. A clear critical path for itswork on all three pillars would allow the Committee to progress in a pragmatic andstep-by-step manner. To this end, the Delegation of Canada thanked the African Group fordocument WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/8 Rev. on the mandate of the Committee. It was a useful

proposal on which to develop the parameters for future work of this Committee. Canada hada strong interest in strengthening the interlinkages between the work of the Committee in

plenary sessions and the indigenous panel. It believed that presentations by the indigenouspanel were part of the body of knowledge of the Committee and that the Committee couldgreatly benefit from it in its deliberations. The Delegation suggested making the


18/94


presentations available on the WIPO website and/or appending the presentations to the reportof the session.

46. The Delegation of the United States of America extended its appreciation to the Chairfor having conducted informal consultations and for reporting thereon in

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/INF/6. The Delegation was convinced that greater recognition andrespect for the creative and innovative contributions of indigenous peoples and traditionalcommunities was a timely and extremely important objective at the international, regional anddomestic level. Second, WIPO had an important role to play in achieving that objective inclose coordination and cooperation with other IGOs and forums, always bearing in mind thespecial expertise within WIPO. Third, the Committee had made significant progress inclarifying the complex issues related to the preservation, protection and promotion of TK,TCEs and GR over the last several years. Fourth, much work remained to be done at theinternational level including the unfinished analytical work of the current biennium. Fifth, theDelegation believed that the acceleration of the substantive work of the Committee held thegreatest promise of reaching the consensus that was necessary to advance its work. Sixth, no

outcome of the Committee, including the adoption of an international instrument orinstruments addressing the preservation, protection and promotion of TK, TCEs and GR,should be excluded and, similarly, no outcome should be prejudged. Seventh, the Delegation

believed that the work of the Committee did not occur in isolation from the work in otherWIPO programs and areas and was therefore constrained by the financial and humanresources of the organization as a whole. The African Group was thanked for tabling itsthoughtful proposal for the renewal of the mandate and the Delegation was reviewing itclosely under the general positions and principles that have informed its participation in theCommittee. It was interested in learning more about the proposal from its proponents, aboutthe views of other delegations, and about the financial and administrative implications of the

proposal from the Secretariat. As various proposals and/or amendments for renewal of the

mandate of the Committee were about to be tabled, the Delegation asked the Secretariat toprovide the kind of financial, administrative and other data that it believed the Committeeneeded to make informed decisions about the proposal. In its view, the specific frameworkdeveloped by the Committee for facilitating discussion was an important basis for thedeliberations of the Member States. The Committee had made substantial progress indeveloping and refining the draft policy principles and objectives for TK and TCEs. Thesedrafts held great promise to becoming a possible vehicle for a statement by the Committeethat would articulate the special needs and concerns of traditional peoples and traditionalcommunities with respect to the subject matter before the Committee. In the elegant phrasingof the Director General, the Committee needed to find an appropriate mechanism torecognize explicitly the contribution to human society of collectively generated andmaintained innovation and creativity, but much work remained to be done. The list of tenissues on both TK and TCEs provided a useful framework for facilitating the kind ofsustained and focused discussion of these issues needed to reach a consensus on theseimportant issues. The Delegation continued to believe that the Committee had begun to makesome progress in identifying the possible gaps in the existing framework for the protection ofTK and TCEs, including identifying certain options that the Committee might wish toconsider addressing any such identified gaps. At its last session, however, the Committee

barely scratched the surface of its deliberations on this important topic. Much work remainedto be done. Against a background of high expectations, the Delegation shared the frustrationof many other Delegations with the slow progress of the Committee over the last two years.

Nonetheless it looked forward to a positive outcome at the fourteenth session and would bewilling to support a recommendation to the General Assembly to renew the mandate foranother two year period. Any recommendation to the 2009 General Assembly for renewal of


19/94


the mandate must include a strong encouragement for the Committee to accelerate andcomplete its deliberations on the three specific uncompleted analytical areas from this

biennium. In addition, it believed that the renewed Committees mandate should include acall to enrich its work program in the area of GRs, ensuring that all three areas are addressedon an equal footing. It expressed the hope that the participants in the fourteenth session

would be able to reach an agreement on language, for a renewed mandate for the Committee,that the Committee doubled its resolve to accelerate and complete its substantive deliberationson the protection of TK and TCEs, to enrich its work on GR and to reach consensus onachievable concrete outcomes during the next two year period.

47. The Delegation of New Zealand expressed its gratitude to the Chair for the informationin WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/INF/6, and endorsed the introductory statement made by Germanyon behalf of Group B. It expressed strong support for the continuation of the Committeeswork in all its mandated areas, including the exploration ofsui generis models, potentially

binding and non-binding measures, for the protection of TK and TCEs. The Delegation wasin favor of a constructive approach involving the development of a menu of options which

could be tested in and adapted to national circumstances. It shared the determination tocurtail and prevent the misappropriation and misuse of GRs, TK and TCEs and supported theneed to address the international dimension of protection. It stressed the need to retainflexibility to develop solutions and mechanisms appropriate to the unique characteristics,circumstances and needs of different countries, regions, indigenous peoples and localcommunities. From its own perspective, it meant retaining flexibility to enable the NewZealand Government and Mori to uphold their Treaty of Waitangi relationship. It also meantthat consultation and engagement with Mori, in particular, was required before anyinternationally binding commitments were agreed to. In regard to the mandate of theCommittee, the Delegation of New Zealand thanked the African Group for its constructive

proposal and was looking forward to discussing its content during the course of this week.

The Committee should focus on a structured program of work, including intersessional work,to address the key contentious issues. It wished to see the Committee reach commonunderstanding and consensus on broad, non-exhaustive and non-exclusive, definitions, clear

policy objectives and principles, beneficiaries, and acceptable and unacceptable behaviors,with a focus on the international dimension of the issues. It added that more work was neededin order to determine and agree on what was meant by sui generis approaches and models.The Delegation considered sui generis models to mean new models of protection thatemerged, not from existing IP concepts or structures of protection, but rather from the needsand aspirations of the holders of TK and TCEs and their communities, from the customarylaws, values, and protocols associated with TK and TCEs, and from the concerns that had

been expressed by indigenous peoples and local communities about the inappropriate use oftheir TK and TCEs. As part of a menu of options, it aligned itself with the statement made byGermany on behalf of Group B in proposing the development of guidelines andrecommendations for improving the efficiency of national systems. These guidelines andrecommendations could complement a structured and appropriately resourced support

program, managed and delivered by WIPO, for Member States and indigenous and localcommunities who required capacity-building and technical assistance in developing domestic

policy relating to IP and GR, TK and TCEs. The Delegation was aware that WIPO alreadyprovided technical assistance in this manner, on a more ad hoc basis, upon request, and itcommended these efforts. This initiative could be formalized and delivered in a moresystematic way as part of or in conjunction with the WIPO Development Agenda. It agreed

with Canada in relation to improving the linkages between the indigenous panel and the workof the Committee. It recalled that New Zealand had been one of the original proponents ofthe indigenous panel. The panel had been instrumental in elucidating through presentations


20/94


the issues that indigenous and local communities faced in the preservation and protection oftheir TK and TCEs. The Delegation had initiated discussions with the Indigenous Caucus andsome Member States in order to explore the possibility of improving the format and timing ofthe panel. There were significant concerns about the decreasing attendance by Member Statesat the Panel, which it shared. The last two sessions had required exceptional management of

the deliberations in order to attempt to reach consensus. Several simultaneous informal groupmeetings had been held during the Indigenous Panel and it was hoped this would not becomethe norm. Various options be considered in order to increase the contribution that the Panelmade to the work of the Committee and looked forward to further discussions with accreditedobservers and Member States regarding this matter.

48. The Delegation of Singapore thanked the Chair for having conducted informalconsultations with the regional groups in preparation for the Committees session. Itassociated itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Sri Lanka on behalf of theAsian Group. The Committee was at a critical juncture in its work. The Delegationwelcomed the debate taking place in the Committee which would contribute to building

international consensus on the protection of GR, TK, and TCEs. It supported the renewal ofthe Committees mandate and it welcomed and took note of the African Groups proposal asset out in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/14/8 Rev. as one of the possible ways of moving theCommittees discussions forward. However, it expressed concerns with some elements in the

proposal, such as moving to text-based negotiations given the present lack of consensus onmany fundamental concepts, the limited range of issues for discussion, the proposedtimelines, and the use of a restricted range of documents for the Committees work. It was ofthe view that the two gap analyses on TKs and TCEs in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/4(b) Rev. andWIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/5(b) Rev. should be further discussed. It was of the view that, as a

pragmatic approach, the renewal of the Committees mandate should be on the basis of afocused work program. It was supportive of intersessional meetings amongst a balanced

group of experts to enhance the quality of the Committees work. The discussions of suchintersessional meetings should focus on the list of ten issues for TK and TCEs reflected inWIPO/GRTKF/IC/10/7 Prov. 2, as well as any other issues raised by Member States andaccredited observers. To facilitate work, there should be a focused work program to clusterthe various issues and set priorities for discussion of the clusters. It firmly believed that a

balance in the issues to be discussed in each cluster would be a good way to move thediscussions forward in the Committee. It reaffirmed its willingness to engage constructively,and urged all Members to keep an open and pragmatic mindset in considering the various

possibilities for the work of the Committee to move forward.

49. The Delegation of Malaysia was confident that the Committee would be able to renewits mandate. It aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Sri Lanka on

behalf of the Asian Group. The Delegation had waited for the Committee to set up aneffective international instrument for the protection of TK, GR and TCEs. It hoped that aftermore than eight years of meetings a diplomatic conference could be convened. Manydocuments had been discussed by the Committee with no outcome so far. In response to thisinertia and in order to show its support for the work undertaken by the Committee, theDelegation announced that a pilot project had been launched on the national level by settingup a TK digital library in April 2009. About 8000 documents linked to TK and GRs had beencollected so far. This database would be utilized by Malaysian patent examiners as part oftheir prior art examination of non patent literature. A Committee had been appointed in 2007

to draft a national law on GR, TK and TCEs. Malaysia had been assisted by WIPO infacilitating this draft and would continue to request further assistance. A concrete


21/94


international regime should be set up in the near future, and there should be a clear timeframefor reaching this objective.

50. The Delegation of Kenya commended WIPO and the Committee for the work it hadcompleted on GR, TK and TCEs since the last Committee session, in particular for its

convening of intersessional and consultative meetings for the various regions. The Delegationassociated itself with the statement by the Delegation of Senegal, on behalf of the AfricanGroup, and fully supported the Groups proposal as to the future work of the Committee. Itwas imperative that the Committees future be structured to achieve an internationally bindinglegal instrument. The Delegation acknowledged that the Committees progress had been slowthus far, but its work had been in vain. Many Member States had used the discussions asreference for national legislation. The Delegation believed that addressing the gaps to dealwith international protection of GR, TK and TCEs was urgent. Kenya had developed a draft

policy on TK, GR, and TCEs, which would afford protection against misappropriation andensure that communities benefitted from the commercialization of their resources. TheDelegation explained that the guiding principles and policy objectives developed by the

Committee had been of great use in providing guidance during its domestic policyformulation process. WIPO was thanked for choosing Kenyas Maasai community asbeneficiaries of a WIPO pilot program for cultural documentation, archiving and IPmanagement, and it hoped that all indigenous communities would benefit from a similar

program. The Delegation looked forward to a structured and time based process so that TK,GR and TCEs would be effectively protected.

51. The Delegation of Peru indicated that, since the creation of the Committee, MemberStates had invested a lot of time in examining issues related to IP and GR, TK and TCEs,issues were highly sensitive and complex due to the range of interests at stake, and that werevital for countries and particularly for indigenous populations, without having managed to

achieve concrete progress in protection in those three areas. It believed that the work shouldpersevere and continue in such a way as to reach the objectives for those for whom theCommittee was created. It indicated that, for Peru, a country with immense biodiversity, TKand TCEs, the importance of IP, for protecting such areas, was justified in the clearunderstanding of how important that tool was for economic, social and cultural development,and that such a conviction meant they were relatively active in the work done by theCommittee and in other fora, in those which had shared their experience in relation to theefforts deployed to ensure the preservation, protection and promotion of their GRs, TK andTCEs. It cited as an example the recently launched web page of the National Commissionagainst Biopiracy. It supported the creation and development of a binding international suigeneris legal instrument, given the experience of defending and protecting TK and GR, as thenational law and Commission for their defense had not been sufficient to stop acts of

biopiracy. It supported extending the mandate of the Committee, with a view to developingone or more IP mechanisms for protecting GR, TK and TCEs of benefit to all, particularlyindigenous communities in the poorest areas of developing countries who were still waiting.

52. The Delegation of Norway associated itself with the statement made by Germany onbehalf of Group B. It expressed its continuing commitment to the work of the Committee andit thanked national delegations, indigenous groups, and NGOs for sharing their localexperiences. The Delegation thanked the African Group for its proposal, which provided ahelpful basis for discussions. The Delegation expressed its support for the continuation of

work on GR, TK and TCEs and for a tangible outcome. It believed that a tangible outcomecould occur with the setting up of timelines and a work program. However, the Delegationwas not looking forward to having the same discussion that the Committee had already had in


22/94


past sessions. It hoped for a clear focus in its talks, and it emphasized its belief that consensuscould be found. Recommendations or guidelines were one way that the Delegation suggestedit could move forward without prejudice to the form or content of any final result. TheDelegation remained open to a solution at any level, national or international, and was lookingforward to a renewal of the Committee mandate.

53. The Delegation of Japan associated itself with the statement made by Germany onbehalf of Group B. Japan stated that it had been engaged in discussions with a constructivespirit, as it attached importance to the issue of GR, TK and TCEs. As for the issue of TK andTCE, discussions should first be deepened on some fundamental issues. For instance,Member States did not yet share a common understanding of the targeted subjects and objectsand also definitions of terms. The Delegation believed that focusing on such fundamentalissues in a steady manner was indispensable. In order to deepen the understanding on those

basic matters, further discussions based on the List of ten substantive issues should first beexplored. With such common understandings on those fundamental items, then, it would be

beneficial to accelerate discussions on the Gap Analysis. The issue of GR was as important

as TK and TCEs. Therefore, it requested that sufficient time be allocated to discussing thatissue. The protection of GR, TK and TCEs had been examined in various international fora.The Delegation believed WIPO, as a UN specialized agency in the field of IP, could employits expertise and best respond to various members expectations in accordance with themandate.

54. The Delegation of Guinea aligned itself with the declaration made by the Delegation ofSenegal on behalf of the African Group. It said that the Committee was important and

believed that its mandate should be renewed. It invited Member States to work in a spirit ofcooperation and flexibility. It declared that with the elements at its disposal and on the basisof the proposal of the African Group, the Committee could hope to achieve fruitful

discussions. It believed that implementing a legal framework to support genetic resources,traditional knowledge and folklore would once again help intellectual property to benefit thesocial and economic development of Member States. It asked Member States of theCommittee not to adopt a static position and to make progress to fill the existing gaps betweenthe various positions and to develop a binding legal instrument.

55. The representative of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)hoped that the Committee would achieve a concrete outcome and develop effective work

programs for its future work. He thanked the Director General for his support. ARIPO hadoften drawn the attention of the Committee to the need to accelerate its work towardsdevelopment of comprehensive international frameworks to enable an international instrumentcapable of ensuring effective protection of GR, TK and TCEs. TK and TCEs were importantcultural and economic assets, and potential sources of wealth creation for the knowledgeowners. The slow pace of the Committees work, coupled with the entrenched positions ofMember States, contributed to the continued misappropriation and exploitation of GR, TKand TCEs. In the past nine years, ARIPO had consistently been proactive in finding solutionsto the complex issues facing the Committee. When delegations called for national andregional experiences to guide the normative process at the international level, ARIPO haddeveloped a road map to assist its 16 members in the development of national and regional

policies and legislative frameworks. ARIPO, together with WPO, was assisting theGovernment of Kenya in reviewing a draft national policy for the protection of GR, TK andTCEs. ARIPO had also participated in the Southern African Development Community(SADC) Indigenous Knowledge Systems Workshop. With WIPOs technical and financialassistance, ARIPO had come up with a Protocol and Implementing Regulations, which it


23/94


would present to the Council of Ministers of ARIPO at its next session in November 2009.ARIPO supported adoption of the proposal put forward by the Delegation of Senegal on

behalf of the African Group regarding the urgent need to return to text-based negotiations.

56. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that in

June 2009, the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture had adopted a Third Party Beneficiary and Funding Strategy. The FAOwas still in the process of exploring the role of food and agriculture in existing access and

benefit-sharing arrangements and policies. Studies had been commissioned on the use andinternational exchange of GRs in the different sectors of food and agriculture. Therepresentative referred to the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources,adopted in2007. The FAO Conference had endorsed this Plan of Action and stressed the important roleof indigenous small-scale live

Documents

Traditional Knowledge - FUBAR